Appeal No. 98-1858
Application 08/678,196
filed March 31, 1997) for a complete statement of appellant’s
arguments.
OPINION
Having carefully considered appellant’s specifica-
tion and claims, the applied references, and the respective
viewpoints of appellant and the examiner, we have reached the
conclusion that the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through
20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is not well founded and, therefore, will not
be sustained.
Like appellant, even if we assume for the sake of
argument that Cumming is analogous prior art, we find no
teaching, suggestion, or incentive in the applied Ross and
Cumming references which would have made it obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s invention
to use a marine mammal trileaflet valve (e.g., a marine mammal
ventricular outflow valve) as a replacement for a human pa-
tient’s dysfunctional valve, more specifically, a human pa-
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007